Ponies! (popular favorites, more inside, images) December 16, 2006 7:49 AM Subscribe
A pony for Christmas?
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- loup
And my take on your wishlist
1. this would automatically make ginormous threads with an assload of comments always and forever the most popular unless you did some sort of funky average. Maybe there is another way this is useful, but it seems like it will weight longer threads in a way that is hard to undo.
2. I personally don't want to see this. I feel like the reason there's no "more inside" is because posts generally shouldn't be huge essays. If you have a huge essay that you think MetaFilter really needs to see, plan to include more in your first comment. This is not at all hard. AskMe requires more explanation sometimes, so it has a more inside feature which works pretty well.
3. The main problem with images isn't that they're annoying, it's that they pose a slight security risk. There are some situations where images would be helpful, but there are only rare ones where an inline image is necessary. There have been many situations where image crapfloods destroy threads entirely. Encouraging images in FPPs, even in a more inside capacity strikes me as a bad idea.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:02 AM on December 16, 2006
1. this would automatically make ginormous threads with an assload of comments always and forever the most popular unless you did some sort of funky average. Maybe there is another way this is useful, but it seems like it will weight longer threads in a way that is hard to undo.
2. I personally don't want to see this. I feel like the reason there's no "more inside" is because posts generally shouldn't be huge essays. If you have a huge essay that you think MetaFilter really needs to see, plan to include more in your first comment. This is not at all hard. AskMe requires more explanation sometimes, so it has a more inside feature which works pretty well.
3. The main problem with images isn't that they're annoying, it's that they pose a slight security risk. There are some situations where images would be helpful, but there are only rare ones where an inline image is necessary. There have been many situations where image crapfloods destroy threads entirely. Encouraging images in FPPs, even in a more inside capacity strikes me as a bad idea.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:02 AM on December 16, 2006
Apropos of nothing, "The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error. Please contact the website administrator."
Are there any expected errors? Is there an alternative error message reading "The web site you are accessing has experienced an expected error. Please do not contact the website administrator."?
posted by five fresh fish at 8:52 AM on December 16, 2006
Are there any expected errors? Is there an alternative error message reading "The web site you are accessing has experienced an expected error. Please do not contact the website administrator."?
posted by five fresh fish at 8:52 AM on December 16, 2006
five fresh fish writes "Are there any expected errors? "
All sorts, but because you expect them you can trap them and server a meaningful message rather than the generic unexpected message.
posted by Mitheral at 9:04 AM on December 16, 2006
All sorts, but because you expect them you can trap them and server a meaningful message rather than the generic unexpected message.
posted by Mitheral at 9:04 AM on December 16, 2006
1. I don't understand what you're asking for.
2. Sure, I'd like to do it and eventually will. I don't think it'll have much of a downside.
3. I don't see the benefit of putting an inline image in a more inside and only there. I can't think of a situation where a link to the image wasn't as informative for people answering a question.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:13 AM on December 16, 2006
2. Sure, I'd like to do it and eventually will. I don't think it'll have much of a downside.
3. I don't see the benefit of putting an inline image in a more inside and only there. I can't think of a situation where a link to the image wasn't as informative for people answering a question.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:13 AM on December 16, 2006
Oh, now I get number 1. The favorites tab is for popular posts, as a filtered view of the default. Comments don't really figure into it so I'd say a big no on that one.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:14 AM on December 16, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:14 AM on December 16, 2006
I feel like the reason there's no "more inside" is because posts generally shouldn't be huge essays.
But posts frequently are huge essays, and the way things are now they sprawl all over the front page. That's like saying "we don't give kids birth control because we don't want them to have sex."
posted by languagehat at 9:45 AM on December 16, 2006
But posts frequently are huge essays, and the way things are now they sprawl all over the front page. That's like saying "we don't give kids birth control because we don't want them to have sex."
posted by languagehat at 9:45 AM on December 16, 2006
That's like saying "we don't give kids birth control because we don't want them to have sex."
It's similar, but not very much like it at all. I'm okay with being outvoted on this, but we have some posters who make ginormous posts and seem to have no problem using the first 1-5 comments to put extra information into. y2karl has made posts that were 1800+ words long in this fashion, as one recent example. Some people love them, and other people argue that superlong essay posts aren't what MeFi is for and that's an interesting and debatable point.
We have a more inside function for AskMe. At least once a week, usually more, I move someone's post into the "more inside" area because they posted some huge question on to the front page. So, having "more inside" doesn't always fix the problem in any case, though it does give the illusion of fixing the problem. People break posting norms all the time, regardless of what tools you make available to them and I don't think having a more inside option would greatly reduce the giant posts on the front page, but it would make them easier for me or mathowie to fix.
The problem is more philosophical, really, whether MetaFilter posts should be pithy and link-based or whether expository essay type posts should be encouraged by making them easier to do and in some way sanctioned by software. My feeling -- personally and not as an admin -- is that longer essayish posts, with few notable exceptions, are rarely really good posts, but this is a matter of style and preference. I don't think encouraging conciseness is at all a bad thing and I think having a more inside option would do the opposite.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:03 AM on December 16, 2006
It's similar, but not very much like it at all. I'm okay with being outvoted on this, but we have some posters who make ginormous posts and seem to have no problem using the first 1-5 comments to put extra information into. y2karl has made posts that were 1800+ words long in this fashion, as one recent example. Some people love them, and other people argue that superlong essay posts aren't what MeFi is for and that's an interesting and debatable point.
We have a more inside function for AskMe. At least once a week, usually more, I move someone's post into the "more inside" area because they posted some huge question on to the front page. So, having "more inside" doesn't always fix the problem in any case, though it does give the illusion of fixing the problem. People break posting norms all the time, regardless of what tools you make available to them and I don't think having a more inside option would greatly reduce the giant posts on the front page, but it would make them easier for me or mathowie to fix.
The problem is more philosophical, really, whether MetaFilter posts should be pithy and link-based or whether expository essay type posts should be encouraged by making them easier to do and in some way sanctioned by software. My feeling -- personally and not as an admin -- is that longer essayish posts, with few notable exceptions, are rarely really good posts, but this is a matter of style and preference. I don't think encouraging conciseness is at all a bad thing and I think having a more inside option would do the opposite.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:03 AM on December 16, 2006
I don't think encouraging conciseness is at all a bad thing and I think having a more inside option would do the opposite.
Encouraging conciseness or just discouraging wordiness? Implementing [more inside] might actually encourage the creators of those clever-but-cryptic short posts to give us more information before we click the external link. I would almost go as far as suggesting that [more inside] be automatically implemented on posts when paragraph breaks are used. Or, (and here's a real pretty pony) use AJAX to toggle between concise first paragraph and long explanation.
posted by wendell at 10:43 AM on December 16, 2006
Encouraging conciseness or just discouraging wordiness? Implementing [more inside] might actually encourage the creators of those clever-but-cryptic short posts to give us more information before we click the external link. I would almost go as far as suggesting that [more inside] be automatically implemented on posts when paragraph breaks are used. Or, (and here's a real pretty pony) use AJAX to toggle between concise first paragraph and long explanation.
posted by wendell at 10:43 AM on December 16, 2006
I don't think encouraging conciseness is at all a bad thing and I think having a more inside option would do the opposite.
How about a tight limit on the number of printable characters in the post text then? It would make it clearer that if you want to write an essay, you still have to have at least one really good link that stands on its own.
posted by teleskiving at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2006
How about a tight limit on the number of printable characters in the post text then? It would make it clearer that if you want to write an essay, you still have to have at least one really good link that stands on its own.
posted by teleskiving at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2006
You get down off a duck. And wool off a sheep. And I don't want to know what you get off a pony.
posted by wendell at 11:17 AM on December 16, 2006
posted by wendell at 11:17 AM on December 16, 2006
If your uncle Jack helps you off a pony, should you help your uncle Jack off a pony?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:35 AM on December 16, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:35 AM on December 16, 2006
You get down off a duck.
Why were you riding a duck in the first place?
posted by moss at 12:03 PM on December 16, 2006
Why were you riding a duck in the first place?
posted by moss at 12:03 PM on December 16, 2006
it seems like any links-hijinks would be a. swiftly caught, b. cruelly punished.
It's a trap!
You could also add...
Oh drats! Now I lost count. How many pony is it?
posted by shoesfullofdust at 8:30 PM on December 16, 2006
It's a trap!
You could also add...
Oh drats! Now I lost count. How many pony is it?
posted by shoesfullofdust at 8:30 PM on December 16, 2006
It's only one pony, but it has six legs.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:19 AM on December 17, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 11:19 AM on December 17, 2006
That's not a leg.
posted by loquacious at 12:59 PM on December 17, 2006
posted by loquacious at 12:59 PM on December 17, 2006
It's not like sheep.
that's right. ponies kick.
Also, with sheep you get on your knees, whereas with ponies you need a stool.
posted by dg at 8:14 PM on December 17, 2006
that's right. ponies kick.
Also, with sheep you get on your knees, whereas with ponies you need a stool.
posted by dg at 8:14 PM on December 17, 2006
I always thought the plural was poni.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:48 PM on December 17, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 10:48 PM on December 17, 2006
Fuck you and the retarded pluralization you rode in on. I'd rather say cactuses than encourage shitheads like you. Leave the virii encrusted penii to Xeni Jardin.
posted by blasdelf at 8:23 PM on December 18, 2006
posted by blasdelf at 8:23 PM on December 18, 2006
Do I know you? Did I run over your dog or something?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:05 PM on December 18, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 10:05 PM on December 18, 2006
Maybe your sin was running over his doggi.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:31 AM on December 19, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 6:31 AM on December 19, 2006
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:54 AM on December 16, 2006 [2 favorites]